The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.
The theme seems to be “reduce operating spending, increase capital spending”. We’ll see how that will blow over with the opposition.
But what services did we get with our ridiculous expansion of the public service over the last four years?
If memory serves, the tax in total, wad supposed to bring in 2 billion. We are paying an order of magnitude more than that to deal with tarrifs affected industries. It seems pretty reasonable to assume something that hits trump’s donors so precisely would elicit a reaction that would cost us much more than we brought in.
Sure, I’d like to as well. But there are I think less than 100 billionaires in Canada. Say we could soak them for even another 100 million a year each (which would be extraordinary and almost require some wild changes to the tax code because of the nature of their wealth, but let’s put those complications to the side.) Groovy. Until what, 1 in 10 decide it’s worth that 100 million plus the existing difference to move to the States or elsewhere. It’s a tricky balance and I’ve yet to see any of our populist “just tax the rich!” really show their math.
Edit: finished my thought after clicking accidentally.
OMG, let them move! We don’t need these social parasites.
Okay, but the person to whom I’m responding wanted to save money by taxing them. So, what services would you cut to be rid of the people who are paying for those services?
The problem with the existence of billionaires is really the wealth inequality itself, not the number of dollars in their bank accounts.
Inequality is what gives the ultra-wealthy their outsized influence in the political economy.
Dollars are not scarce items; the government can issue currency essentially at will. Taxes aren’t there to fund services. They exist to reduce inequality.
So yes, tax the billionaires. And if they leave: we’re better off that way too!
Sorry, I seriously disagree with about all of this.
This is about Canadian politics. We have strict rules and limits on donations, advertising and support. Like anything, could probably be better but it’s a pretty fair balance.
Apologies but this is childishly ignorant. Look to most countries in South America about the consequences of doing so. Inflation is very real and reducing the value of the Canadian dollar hurts those who can afford it least.
Absolutely not. Being equally poor without teachers, doctors, roads, defence, I mean my God.
We do. You let me know how much you think we do currently, how much more you would like.
Who needs hospitals, schools, emergency responders etc anyway? At least we won’t have dumb ol’ rich people anymore!
You’re welcome to disagree - but everything I said is factual. If there’s something you don’t understand, I’m happy to explain - just ask.
Okay, sure, this is technically true. In the same way that technically, you can drink bleach it’s just a very bad idea.
It’s literally how we dealt with the first phase of the Covid pandemic. Was keeping millions of Canadians from being evicted a bad idea?
Covid, and emergencies like it, are entirely the point of fiscal responsibility!
In an emergency, you can max out your credit. If you do that on the regular, for non emergencies, not only will you end up paying an absurd amount of interest, but you won’t be able to borrow more when the next emergency happens!